In a Friday interview with The Daily, University president Jonathan Levin ’94 commented on the storm of policies under President Donald Trump that have rocked Stanford since January, including potential federal funding cuts, escalating immigration enforcement, a clampdown on DEI efforts and changes to Title IX rules.

Levin acknowledged the instability in federal policies, expressing his opposition to research funding cuts, and said he was “very concerned” about the potential effects of new immigration policies on international and undocumented community members. He refrained from overtly criticizing the Trump administration, instead emphasizing institutional neutrality.

Levin also said that leadership of the Bridge peer counseling center, a student mental health resource that has faced the risk of closure, reached an agreement with student affairs to secure a location and funding. Addressing potential criminal charges against Dilan Gohill ’27, an editor for The Daily who was arrested while covering a pro-Palestine protest last year, Levin said the University would not intervene in the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s decision.

Following the interview, the University received a letter from the Department of Education (DOE) ordering a halt to race-conscious practices — including in hiring, admissions, financial aid and campus life — and threatening a loss of federal funding to institutions that did not comply within 14 days.

This interview has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.

The Stanford Daily (TSD): Thank you for sitting down with me. There’s a lot to discuss given the number of White House policies affecting Stanford, but I’m hoping we can start with federal funding.

The Trump administration has directed deep cuts at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), including heavy reductions in funding for indirect research costs. Provost Martinez recently wrote that this would reduce funding to Stanford departments by around $160 million annually. What do you see as the potential effects of this change and the broader landscape for research universities in this climate?

Jonathan Levin (JL): I believe it’s a critical moment for universities, and a moment not just to wrestle with specific issues, of which there are many, but to renew the social contract between universities and the federal government, which is such a defining source of strength for the country.

The U.S., after World War II, established a brilliant strategy for scientific leadership. It’s allowed the U.S. to be the leader in the world. The government funds research in universities through a competitive merit-based process. Universities share the results openly, the private sector builds on them, and that is what drives innovation in the country.

That’s just an exceptional model. Virtually every study of federal funding has shown that a dollar allocated to university research generates several dollars in return. The NIH is the largest funder of biomedical research in the world, and the research that it funds is what drives advances in human health and in biomedicine. It benefits everyone in the country and everyone in the world. 

Last week, the agency announced that it would make a sharp cut in the indirect cost payments to universities. It’s not the greatest terminology, but the concept is pretty simple. That is the money that goes to fund the construction and maintenance of labs and facilities, equipment and administrative support for research. It’s hard to do research without a lab and the equipment that’s in it.

The order has been [stayed], and we’re part of a lawsuit objecting to it, but the threat to federal funding is very real and it’s hugely consequential for Stanford, every research university in the country and for the country as a whole. This is a moment not just to respond to that particular issue, which we have to do, but to be focused on, ‘How do we strengthen this core partnership between universities and the government on which everyone depends?’

TSD: Apart from the lawsuit you mentioned, has the University taken steps to oppose or lobby against these cuts? Do you plan to travel to Washington, D.C. personally?

JL: Our approach of the University leadership has been, first of all, to take a steady and clear-eyed approach to responding to policy changes, trying to communicate when we have information, but not to do real-time commentary on events in D.C. We’re engaging intensely in discussions with policymakers in Washington, with other universities, with other leaders in the country, to try to shape and influence the national conversation. I was in D.C. in January. I’ll be back in D.C. in two weeks. I expect I will be there quite a number of times in the coming year.

TSD: In our last interview, you said you expected that Stanford Medicine professor Jay Bhattacharya MD ’97 Ph.D. ’00 would “do an exceptional job” as director of the NIH. Is that still your expectation, given the changes we’ve seen at the NIH so far and his reported plans to limit grants based on campus culture?

JL: Jay has been nominated to be the Director of the [NIH]. He’s not yet in place. My hope and expectation is that when he becomes director, assuming he’s confirmed, he will be an exceptional director. I’m confident that he understands the partnership between universities and the federal government that underpins biomedical research and innovation in the country, and he’ll do everything he can to support great scientific advances that will benefit everyone, the United States and have benefits around the world.

TSD: What do you make of this potential plan to limit grants to universities based on metrics of their campus culture or academic freedom, however that might be defined?

JL: My view is that the right way to allocate federal grants is using a competitive, merit-based process and to focus on the ideas that are proposed. I think that’s the right model to allocate research funding because it rewards the scientists who have the best ideas, and it allocates funds accordingly. That is a model that has worked spectacularly for the country in the past, and I think it will work spectacularly in the future if we continue on with it.

TSD: We’ve also seen the Trump administration take steps toward dismantling the Department of Education. How are those changes affecting Stanford, and are you opposed to them?

JL: There’s a lot of discussion about what may happen with the Department of Education and a lot of uncertainty about that. It’s too soon to say exactly how that might affect Stanford, but we’re paying close attention to it, and we’re going to continue to do so. 

A very significant program within the Department of Education is the federal student loan program, which is important to Stanford, and it’s even more important when you look broadly across higher education. Stanford, relative to almost every other University, has very robust endowment support for student fellowships, which is what allows us to have such generous student aid and is the reason why 88% of students who graduated from Stanford last year have no debt.

Not every university is in that position to have the generosity of alumni to support current students, and so they’re very dependent on the Federal Student Aid problem program, and changes there would matter a lot for the entire sector of higher education.

TSD: Should President Trump attempt to disband the DOE, would Stanford lobby against that?

JL: I think it’s very hard to speak to hypotheticals, particularly in the current environment, so I try to speak to things that are actually on the table at the moment.

TSD: Some campus organizations have expressed concern about how the Trump administration’s escalation of deportations and ICE enforcement could affect undocumented community members. Will the University take steps to support undocumented students and staff?

JL: I’m very concerned about how changes in immigration policy — and there’s uncertainty about what those will be — could affect international students and undocumented students. It is important to know that Stanford has very robust immigration resources. 

The immigration website that Stanford maintains that explains the resources, also explains the parameters along which Stanford engages with federal agencies. We’re already seeing more students coming forward to talk to the immigration rights clinic at Stanford Law School. I also want to say that attracting exceptional students and faculty from around the world, it’s a huge asset for Stanford, and it’s a huge asset for the country and it’s a really important and central issue for universities.

TSD: The Undergraduate Senate [has been] considering a resolution that would make Stanford a “sanctuary campus,” which would prevent the University from assisting with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless mandated by court order. What are your thoughts on that proposal?

JL: Stanford has a set of policies along which we engage with federal agencies. I think most of what the student council would like to see Stanford do, we already do. I am not inclined to make sort of blanket slogan statements. I’d much rather we focus on the substance of what we do and how we’re supporting students who need support with immigration issues.

TSD: In 2017, during the first Trump administration, former University president Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Provost John Etchemendy wrote a statement that Stanford would “continue vigorously advocating before Congress, the Executive Branch, and beyond for policies consistent with its commitment to members of our community” who were international or undocumented. Do you plan to make a similar commitment?

JL: Stanford has a long history of advocating for immigration policies that would enable the University to be open to the most talented students and faculty from all over the world. That’s critical to being an excellent university, being at the forefront of research and having a great educational environment for students on the campus. I continue to believe that that is an essential part of what makes Stanford a great university, and we’ll continue to say that.

TSD: Do you think the climate has shifted since 2017 in terms of your ability to publicly take a position on these policies?

JL: Many things have changed since 2017, several of which are relevant to the question that you’re asking. One is that the political environment in the country has changed, it’s become polarized. I think it’s very clear that universities cannot be successful by playing for one political team. American universities have to be universities for the entire country, and they have to demonstrate that they’re efficient stewards of taxpayer dollars and that we can provide an environment that’s conducive to a broad range of political views, robust debate and discourse. 

Last year, the Faculty Senate adopt[ed] a policy, which I strongly supported, on institutional statements. Simply put, the statement says that University leaders — meaning me, the Provost, the deans, institute directors, senior staff [and] Department Chairs — won’t make proclamations on political or social issues unless those issues specifically impact on the University and its core functions.

Why did the Senate do that? It adopted that policy to help ensure that the University as a whole could be a stronger platform for discussion and engagement with political issues on the part of the students and the faculty coming from different viewpoints. 

That we would eschew political orthodoxy — that is, everyone agreeing to a single position of advocacy — and instead respond to political and social events by letting individual students and faculty make up their own minds and act based on that. And that the role of the University would be to create a forum for debate, independent thinking, discussion and learning. That’s really what universities do best, even at times — maybe especially at times — of political change.

TSD: Do you see immigration policies as relevant to the University and its core functioning?

JL: Immigration policy around students and faculty bears directly on the University and its core function, in my view. Immigration is a very broad issue, it’s a very contentious issue in the country right now, and some of the issues related to immigration at the University should be topics of study, debate and discussion. Appropriately so, because within the campus, people might have different views and we can bring expertise and evidence to bear on the issues that can help inform the whole national discussion.

TSD: At a recent Faculty Senate meeting, you said the University would review or modify programs “under the DEI heading” in response to Trump’s executive order targeting DEI. Since January, information and commitments to diversity have also been removed from several University websites. Is the University scrapping its past DEI efforts?

JL: Our ability to attract students and faculty with a diversity of backgrounds and perspectives is essential to Stanford, and it’s equally essential that members of the University can speak their minds freely and have the support to flourish. I believe those are enduring and mutually reinforcing principles supporting research and education. 

You asked about language on websites, and that relates to a discussion in last week’s Faculty Senate about making statements, broad statements, about DEI. I observed that the term DEI has come to mean different things to different people, and it’s very easy to communicate about it in ways that we’re talking past one another — even to the point that making broad statements about DEI without being clear about what’s meant and what the programs actually are, has the risk of just being a signal of political affiliation. 

That’s actually problematic for the University as a whole, for the reason we just discussed, that the University isn’t a political organization that takes collective sides on issues that are being debated broadly in the country. It provides an environment where students and faculty can think for themselves and form their own views.

The principles I articulated have not changed, and the University is going to continue to work toward them. And it’s also a good time for us to have a discussion about why this issue has become so contentious for the country, and to have that discussion not about acronyms or slogans, but about the substance of policies and practices. That’s important to do on a campus, so we can all learn something and form clearer views and have a chance to influence the country in different ways.

TSD: To be more specific, then, there’s been information removed from the websites dedicated to the IDEAL initiative and to Stanford DiversityWorks. So are those initiatives, in particular, being scrapped?

JL: The IDEAL initiative, which has been the University’s main diversity umbrella, is still active. It is an umbrella in the sense that it encompasses programs that are all over the campus, in different schools and departments and units. Many of them go back decades, some of them are newer. The federal policies around DEI are changing, so we will have to look through the programs that we’re offering and whether they need to adapt as a result. 

We’re going to do that in a thoughtful way, and we’re going to do it in a way that reflects the enduring educational mission and principles of the University. Programs that are broadly beneficial to the campus and to education and research, of course, continue. There may be some things that may no longer be in compliance, and we’ll have to give thought to what we want to do about those.

TSD: The Trump administration has also reverted to past Title IX rules, including rolling back protections for transgender students and narrowing the definition of sexual harassment. What is your view on those changes?

JL: We have consistently followed administration guidance around Title IX, and it has changed over time. We followed the rules in the Obama administration, and then the Trump administration, Biden administration and now again in the Trump administration. We’ll continue to follow federal policy. Having said that, the core principle at the University as it relates to Title IX is that we’re trying to offer opportunity, equal access [and] non-discrimination to our students.

That basic principle is enduring and constant, and something that’s important for the university to keep as a North Star, even as the specific policy interpretations vary from administration to administration.

After the interview, Levin wrote the following in an email to The Daily to clarify his answer:

We have to follow the specific guidance about Title IX implementation from the Office of Civil Rights. The Trump administration rescinded the Biden administration guidance, and reverted to rules that were in place five years ago. We’ll need to see if there are further changes. I also think that on areas such as sexual harassment covered by Title IX, some of the most important work we do is educational, and in helping to establish a culture of respect on campus, and we’ll continue to dedicate serious attention to that. 

TSD: Student protesters, as well as some faculty, have called for you and Provost Martinez to more vocally oppose the executive orders affecting Stanford. What’s your response to those calls?

JL: I think we have to be guided by what’s right for Stanford over a long period of time. The mission of the University, to create ideas and to educate students, is an enduring mission. It doesn’t change with national politics, and we have to do things that are guided by the long term, not by reactions in the moment to turbulent political times. The current environment is a hard one, because every day there’s a new story or announcement in the news that, in principle, we could react to with statements or position-taking. They might be gone the next day, there’ll be new issues.

I think the best approach for the University is to have our principles and values of what makes for a great research and educational institution. To advocate for the conditions that will permit that in Washington. To keep focused on what’s right for the institution. To try to anticipate and adapt to changes that might come. And to make sure there’s an opportunity for students and faculty to talk about and debate political changes in the country, because they’re important and they do have the potential to significantly impact universities.

TSD: On the eve of the election in November, you expressed confidence on a panel about the stability and future of American institutions. Are you still as confident?

JL: I’m an enormous believer in institutions, and an enormous believer in institutions like Stanford that are enduring and will go on for long periods of time. I have no doubt that Stanford will endure and will continue to be a great institution, and that the institutions of the United States will endure and continue.

TSD: Does that include the federal government?

JL: I have confidence in the Constitution of the United States and the federal government.

TSD: You wrote last month that the University would not pursue disciplinary action against Dilan Gohill ’27, the Daily reporter who was arrested while covering a pro-Palestine protest last year, and who also recently won the Society of Professional Journalists’ James Madison Freedom of Information Award and Golden Sledgehammer Award. Since the University has determined this internally, will you call for the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s office not to pursue charges against him?

JL: The University disciplinary process has concluded and there was no disciplinary sanction for the Daily reporter. The University always cooperates with the Santa Clara County DA, but specific decisions by the DA about how to pursue cases are the DA’s decisions, and we’re going to let the DA’s office make them.

TSD: New data on the Class of 2028, which is the first admitted class since the Supreme Court ruled against race-conscious admissions, show a decline in Black and Latino students’ enrollment. Will the University take steps to increase Black and Latino representation at Stanford?

JL: This year’s class was the first that’s been admitted since the Supreme Court decision eliminating affirmative action. There was a significant decline in underrepresented minority students, especially Black students. It’s very disappointing. The admissions office has a big effort underway to do regional outreach. We’re hopeful that that will make a difference in next year’s class. It’s also the case that everyone who has studied racial gaps in education seriously has concluded that, ultimately, the country needs to provide greater early childhood opportunity. This year’s results at Stanford and other universities put that in very sharp relief.

TSD: The Bridge peer counseling center, which is a mental health resource for students, is currently facing risks to its continuation and potential defunding by Stanford Student Affairs. What do you have to say to students who are concerned about this?

JL: I believe the [vice provost for student affairs] and the Bridge leadership, after a somewhat bumpy process, have found a solution for location and funding. That’s great because it’s clearly a program that students care about.

TSD: Is there anything more you’d like to share?

JL: I think just in the last two or three years, we’ve already seen that AI is going to have a fundamental impact on education. We’ve historically taught students how to think by teaching them how to write, and now there’s a tool to do that. I think that realization, as it becomes universal, we’re going to have a fascinating discussion about how a college education should evolve. I think Stanford is going to be at the center of that discussion, because of who we are, where we are and the brilliant students and faculty on this campus. I’m really excited about that.

This article has been updated to accurately reflect that Trump’s executive order regarding NIH funding has been stayed, not rescinded.